Orthodox-What is Your View Re The "Primacy" of Peter/Keys?

[gurneyhalleck1]

’I am the living bread;’ and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)…Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you…He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him.–St. Ambrose, Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4, Cited by Karlfreid Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16:13-18 im lateinischen Mittelater, Dissertation, Tubingen, 1963.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The idea of the Rock being the CONFESSION Peter made and not being Peter himself is definitely well-attested in the early church. Augustine stands out as one of the main proponents of the idea of the confession being the Rock:

Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ– St. Augustine, A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Volume 20, Sermon 97.3, p. 686, (Sermon 147, Benedictine Edition).

Peter had already said to him, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ He had already heard, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her’ (Mt 16:16-18). Such faith was drowned when the Lord was crucified. Peter, you see, only believed he was the Son of God up to the time he saw him hanging on the tree, the time he saw him fixed there with nails, the time he saw him dead, the time he saw him buried. Then he lost what he held. Where’s the rock? Where’s the immovable solidity of the rock? Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That’s why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn’t lived–St. Augustine, John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, pp. 95-96.

This quote from Ambrose just paints such a powerful picture of an Orthodox style of Church polity and Orthodox understanding of Peter that it’s just amazing:

**He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard: ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank…**This, then, is Peter who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation. Christ agreed with him; the Father revealed it to him. For he who speaks of the true generation of the Father, received it from the Father, did not receive it from the flesh. Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies. The day will fail me sooner than the names of heretics and the different sects, yet against all is this general faith-that Christ is the Son of God, and eternal from the Father, and born of the Virgin Mary–St. Ambrose, 52The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord 4.32-5.35, pp. 230-1.

These are great posts, gurney. Thank you so much!

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

’I am the living bread;’ and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)…Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you…He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him.–St. Ambrose, Commentary in Luke VI.98, CSEL 32.4, Cited by Karlfreid Froehlich, Formen der Auslegung von Matthaus 16:13-18 im lateinischen Mittelater, Dissertation, Tubingen, 1963.

Wow, gurney! I really appreciate these quotes. Though I’m not surprised to receive them from you. You are the one who suggested I read “The Primacy of Peter,” and that pushed me to seek more about the Orthodox beliefs and viewpoints on the subject.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I have uh-plenty more lass! Leprachaun talk? I’m losing it. Been a long week with sixth-graders. And to imagine next week I have to live up in the foothills at SCICON science camp with the little buggers for four days and nights! Help me Lord!

Wow, gurney! I really appreciate these quotes. Though I’m not surprised to receive them from you. You are the one who suggested I read “The Primacy of Peter,” and that pushed me to seek more about the Orthodox beliefs and viewpoints on the subject.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But it’s amazing how you can get the exact opposite position from Jerome!

***Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this I know, is the rock on which the church is built!–***St. Jerome, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), Volume VI, St. Jerome, Epistle 15.2, To Pope Damasus, p. 18.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Chapter and verse numbers were added in the era of the Reformation. Verses 19 and 20 of chapter 6 are part of verse 18 – they’re part of a continuous statement from Jesus. To separate verse 18 from 19 and 20 is to do injustice to the text. You’re cutting off Jesus mid-stream, and you’re not reading it the way Matthew wrote it. Plainly in that passage Jesus was talking about something that he would do later.

I am aware of the addition of chapters and verses and the late date for these additions (I read a number of books/did research on the transmission of Scripture a few years ago.) I just wasn’t quite sure what you were referring to, regarding the future tense. I appreciate the clarification.

We should remember the closing verse of chapter 16: Jesus says that his disciples will see his glory before they die. When was that fulfilled? “Six days later” in chapter 17. Was it only Peter? No, it was Peter with two other disciples. And then more time passes, and then in chapter 18 we get back to what Jesus was talking about in chapter 16.

Indeed. Peter was not the only witness to the Transfiguration.

It makes sense that the transfiguration would occur before the passing of the keys, does it not? It makes sense that Jesus would have prepped his disciples with that talk about being the Christ before he did that thing on the mountain, and it makes sense that he would have done both before passing on his keys of authority.

I haven’t heard this viewpoint before. I find this very interesting.

And to say that the other 11 apostles were not given keys to the kingdom is wholly inconsistent with their three years of discipleship with Jesus. James and John were on the mountaintop too. It wasn’t just Peter. To discard them, and say that they received no keys of authority themselves in chapter 18, is crazy.

I agree.

Thanks so much, scottm!
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I have uh-plenty more lass! Leprachaun talk? I’m losing it. Been a long week with sixth-graders. And to imagine next week I have to live up in the foothills at SCICON science camp with the little buggers for four days and nights! Help me Lord!

I’ll take everything Orthodox.

But it’s amazing how you can get the exact opposite position from Jerome!

***Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. For this I know, is the rock on which the church is built!–***St. Jerome, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), Volume VI, St. Jerome, Epistle 15.2, To Pope Damasus, p. 18.

Don’t want to open that door. lol. I need a break from “Rome.” Think “Orthodox.”

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

gurney,

scottm made a very interesting point about the transfiguration occurring, before the passing of the keys. Have not heard that viewpoint before. Do you know if this is uniquely Orthodox? I’m still a “recovering Baptist” and trying to study as much as I can. Still have a long way to go.

. . . .It makes sense that the transfiguration would occur before the passing of the keys, does it not? It makes sense that Jesus would have prepped his disciples with that talk about being the Christ before he did that thing on the mountain, and it makes sense that he would have done both before passing on his keys of authority. . . .

Thanks,

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thanks to all for the great responses. I’ll check back tomorrow.

Goodnight all, :sad_bye:
Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

All people named Scott seem to be so insightful and bright! LOL! Just kiddin’!

Honestly maybe because it’s too late at night, I’m not understanding the point? Why is it significant? Gosh I need caffeine or something!

gurney,

scottm made a very interesting point about the transfiguration occurring, before the passing of the keys. Have not heard that viewpoint before. Do you know if this is uniquely Orthodox? I’m still a “recovering Baptist” and trying to study as much as I can. Still have a long way to go.

Thanks,

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

All people named Scott seem to be so insightful and bright! LOL! Just kiddin’!

Honestly maybe because it’s too late at night, I’m not understanding the point? Why is it significant? Gosh I need caffeine or something!

I’ll get back to you on this tomorrow. I’m too tired to think.

Anna

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**And herein I am justly indignant at such open and manifest folly in [Pope] Stephen, that he who boasts of the seat of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, **on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, introduces many other rocks, and buildeth anew many Churches, in that by his authority he maintains baptism among them. For they who are baptized, without doubt fill up the number of the Church. But whoso approves their baptism, must needs also maintain of those baptized, that the Church also is with them. Nor does he perceive that he who thus betrays and abandons unity, casts into the shade, and in a manner effaces, the truth of the Christian Rock…Stephen, who proclaims that he occupies by succession the chair of Peter, is roused by no zeal against heretics, conceding to them no small but the very greatest power of grace, so far as to say and assert that through the Sacrament of Baptism they wash off the defilement of the old man, pardon the old deadly sins, make sons to God by heavenly regeneration, renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the Divine laver. He who concedes and assigns heretics such great and heavenly privileges of the Church, what else does he than hold communion with them, for whom he maintains and claims so much grace–Bishop Firmilian, A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Epistle 75.17-18

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The idea of the Rock being the CONFESSION Peter made and not being Peter himself is definitely well-attested in the early church. Augustine stands out as one of the main proponents of the idea of the confession being the Rock:

Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ– St. Augustine, A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Volume 20, Sermon 97.3, p. 686, (Sermon 147, Benedictine Edition).

Peter had already said to him, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ He had already heard, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her’ (Mt 16:16-18). Such faith was drowned when the Lord was crucified. Peter, you see, only believed he was the Son of God up to the time he saw him hanging on the tree, the time he saw him fixed there with nails, the time he saw him dead, the time he saw him buried. Then he lost what he held. Where’s the rock? Where’s the immovable solidity of the rock? Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That’s why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn’t lived–St. Augustine, John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, pp. 95-96.

I wish to make a post here in respect to the OP, not to engage in differences between Orthodox opinions but to clarify here, That this Roman Catholic St.Augustine is not recognized by most Orthodox Churches who are not in communion with Rome because of his loyalty to the Catholic magisterium. Then To try and use his writings against his Catholic beliefs and try and persuade that he “Augustine” holds to a protestant view of Peter and Rock from his “confession” reveals a lack of understanding of St. Augustines thought and writings.

St.Augustine writings never contradict themselves. These writings never deal with Peter’ confession being the rock, but are dealing with the faith of Peter, not Simon bar Jona who made the confession of Jesus being the Son of God, Peter never makes this confession from Mt.16. Jesus begets Peter by changing Simon bar Jona’s name.

Had Jesus built his Church upon a confession that revealed him to be the Son of God? Jesus would of built his church upon Nathanael, for he was the first disciple to reveal His (Jesus) divinity from John 1:49, not to mention the centurion’s whom Jesus found the greatest faith in all of Israel. No the confession was from Simon bar Jona never Peter which was a sign from heaven, whom God chose for Jesus to begin building his Church upon the (rock = Kephas) = Peter. Then Later God reveals to Peter from heaven to allow the Gentiles into His Church.

I must confess, I am not here to dispute orthodox opinions, but to correct a misquote from a Catholic Saint Augustine from Hippo. Here is ST. Augustines official teaching on (Rock) Matthew 16… which never conflicts with the above quotes by St. Augustine. And the Orthodox know this.

ST. Augustine (To Generosus letter No. 53)

“For if the order of succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom, as representing the whole Church, the Lord said; “Upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt. 16:18). For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, to Evaristus Sixtus, to Sixtus Telephorus, to Telephorus Hyginus, to Hyginus Anicetus, to Anicetus Pius, to Pius Soter, to Soter Alexander, to Alexander Victor, to Victor Zephrinus, to Zephrinus Calistus, to Calistus Urban Pontian, to Pontian Antherus, to Antherus Fabian, to Fabian Cornelius, to Cornelius Lucius, to Lucius Stephen, to Stephen Sixtus, to Sixtus Dionysius, to Dionysius Felix, to Felix Eutychian, to Eutychian Gaius, to Gaius Marcellus, to Marcellus Eucsbius, to Eucsbius Melchiades, to Melchiades Sylvester, to Sylvester Marcus, to Marcus Julius, to Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Siricius, to Siricius Anastius”…

Peace be with you

 

[FrancisofPaola3]

The idea of the Rock being the CONFESSION Peter made and not being Peter himself is definitely well-attested in the early church. Augustine stands out as one of the main proponents of the idea of the confession being the Rock:

Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ– St. Augustine, A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Volume 20, Sermon 97.3, p. 686, (Sermon 147, Benedictine Edition).

Peter had already said to him, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ He had already heard, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her’ (Mt 16:16-18). Such faith was drowned when the Lord was crucified. Peter, you see, only believed he was the Son of God up to the time he saw him hanging on the tree, the time he saw him fixed there with nails, the time he saw him dead, the time he saw him buried. Then he lost what he held. Where’s the rock? Where’s the immovable solidity of the rock? Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That’s why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn’t lived–St. Augustine, John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, pp. 95-96.

The idea of the Rock being the CONFESSION of Peter is indeed well-attested to in the early Church…but is this the only thing regarding the rock that the early Church attests to? St. Augustine also said, “Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown,so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, ]in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine,To Glorius et.al,Epistle 43:7

Seriously, don’t get caught up in fancy Augustinian world play, life will just be more complicated than it needs to be. “Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” Augustine,Psalm against the Party of Donatus,18

 

[Anna_Scott]

Chapter and verse numbers were added in the era of the Reformation. Verses 19 and 20 of chapter 6 are part of verse 18 – they’re part of a continuous statement from Jesus. To separate verse 18 from 19 and 20 is to do injustice to the text. You’re cutting off Jesus mid-stream, and you’re not reading it the way Matthew wrote it. Plainly in that passage Jesus was talking about something that he would do later.

We should remember the closing verse of chapter 16: Jesus says that his disciples will see his glory before they die. When was that fulfilled? “Six days later” in chapter 17. Was it only Peter? No, it was Peter with two other disciples. And then more time passes, and then in chapter 18 we get back to what Jesus was talking about in chapter 16.

It makes sense that the transfiguration would occur before the passing of the keys, does it not? It makes sense that Jesus would have prepped his disciples with that talk about being the Christ before he did that thing on the mountain, and it makes sense that he would have done both before passing on his keys of authority. And to say that the other 11 apostles were not given keys to the kingdom is wholly inconsistent with their three years of discipleship with Jesus. James and John were on the mountaintop too. It wasn’t just Peter. To discard them, and say that they received no keys of authority themselves in chapter 18, is crazy.

scottm,

It does make sense that the Transfiguration would occur, before the passing of the keys. It finally dawned on me that you must be talking about Pentecost/Holy Spirit coming down, as the day the Church was formed, and the Keys were bestowed. Is that what you meant?

Anna

 

[FrancisofPaola3]

**And herein I am justly indignant at such open and manifest folly in [Pope] Stephen, that he who boasts of the seat of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, **on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, introduces many other rocks, and buildeth anew many Churches, in that by his authority he maintains baptism among them. For they who are baptized, without doubt fill up the number of the Church. But whoso approves their baptism, must needs also maintain of those baptized, that the Church also is with them. Nor does he perceive that he who thus betrays and abandons unity, casts into the shade, and in a manner effaces, the truth of the Christian Rock…Stephen, who proclaims that he occupies by succession the chair of Peter, is roused by no zeal against heretics, conceding to them no small but the very greatest power of grace, so far as to say and assert that through the Sacrament of Baptism they wash off the defilement of the old man, pardon the old deadly sins, make sons to God by heavenly regeneration, renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the Divine laver. He who concedes and assigns heretics such great and heavenly privileges of the Church, what else does he than hold communion with them, for whom he maintains and claims so much grace–Bishop Firmilian, A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Epistle 75.17-18

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.”
Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5

 

[FrancisofPaola3]

This quote from Ambrose just paints such a powerful picture of an Orthodox style of Church polity and Orthodox understanding of Peter that it’s just amazing:

**He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard: ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank…**This, then, is Peter who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation. Christ agreed with him; the Father revealed it to him. For he who speaks of the true generation of the Father, received it from the Father, did not receive it from the flesh. Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies. The day will fail me sooner than the names of heretics and the different sects, yet against all is this general faith-that Christ is the Son of God, and eternal from the Father, and born of the Virgin Mary–St. Ambrose, 52The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord 4.32-5.35, pp. 230-1.

St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, and now the glorious bishop of Milan? sigh
“Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all(churches) the bonds of sacred communion.”
Ambrose,To Emperor Gratian,Epistle 11:4(A.D. 381),in SPP,160

We all (myself included) really need to relax with all of these quotes. Quote-wars is never fun.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The idea of the Rock being the CONFESSION of Peter is indeed well-attested to in the early Church…but is this the only thing regarding the rock that the early Church attests to? St. Augustine also said, “Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown,so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, ]in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine,To Glorius et.al,Epistle 43:7

Seriously, don’t get caught up in fancy Augustinian world play, life will just be more complicated than it needs to be. “Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” Augustine,Psalm against the Party of Donatus,18

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.”
Cyprian,The Unity of the Church,4-5

FrancisofPaola3,

I see you just joined the forums. Welcome. These are great forums.

As the Original Poster (OP) of this thread, I promised our Orthodox friends that this thread would not be for the purpose of arguing against the Orthodox views.

I started this thread to learn more about the Orthodox views as noted in my original post quoted below:

Matthew 16 (ESV): 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I recently read "The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church," John Meyendorff, Editor. This is a fascinating book written from the Orthodox viewpoint.

I would really like to hear from Orthodox forum members regarding your views on the “Primacy of Peter,” the “Keys,” the “Rock” upon which the Church is built; and how “Apostolic Succession” relates to authority.

Thanks to All,
Anna

After receiving a few PM’s, I just want to clarify that the purpose of this thread is to better understand the Orthodox viewpoint re the “Primacy” of Peter/Keys, etc. not to debate or argue against the Orthodox position. I have questions, and I think there are others who would also benefit from this inquiry.

I welcome all comments from Orthodox forum members. Others feel free to join in with any questions you have about the Orthodox faith.

This should be a friendly thread. I’m in need of a friendly thread for a change.

Anna

Since you are interested in debating the issue of Peter/Keys, etc., there is an open thread entitled, “Orthodoxy, Papacy.” Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=474368. There is a debate going on there between Orthodox and Catholics.

Again, welcome to CAF,
Anna

 

[FrancisofPaola3]

I’m just making a blind post, just to give an off the cuff response, at the request of a friend.

I recall maybe a year ago, in my more mature Eastern Orthodox days, getting IM’d by a fresh, young, spunky Roman Catholic convert. We started talking and were getting along well, but of course the conversation turned invariably to: “Why didn’t you go Roman Catholic?” I gave a polite response that wasn’t negative of Roman Catholicism at all, but of course the conversation, which had gone to email, turned to the question of Matthew 16:18. To put it plainly, I tried to walk him through the focus of the entire passage of scripture (faith in Christ), quoted several early Church Fathers who focused primarily on the faith of Peter rather than Peter himself, and likewise pointed to places such as Revelation that referred to the Isaiah prophecy that supposedly spoke of Peter when in fact it was referring to Christ.

Eventually, all I kept getting back from him was Matthew 16:18 repeated over and over again, with no real response to the arguments I had put forward. Finally at some point I told him if he considered the Eastern Orthodox brothers in Christ this shouldn’t be that big of an issue for him, and with a quick agreement our conversations ended, and I’ve never spoken to him again. I still feel the same way I do about Matthew 16:18, even after hearing Roman Catholic arguments for it. I avoid talking about it online because for the most part it becomes simply like that email conversation I had a year back, and I’ve become immune to the whole issue.

That’s all I really have to say. God bless.

We can pretend this is an either/or issue all we want but the fact of the matters is the Fathers speak of the confession of Peter AND Peter himself. The interpretations of the Fathers are quite deep, and cannot be limited to this either/or way or looking at things. And, while we’re at it, let’s cut the **** (none of us are master theologians here, so enough with the fancy reasoning and quotations, our intellects are just as flawed after our conclusions as they were before we made them). We all know that unity is a sign of the Holy Spirit, and a mark of the true Church, and that in so many ways that unity will parallel that of the Jews of old, will be stable, and last until the end of the world. If you seriously believe that the unity of the Orthodox Churches bears witness to the Spirit which Christ sent forth to safeguard the Church, and that their unity is a sign of the true Church compared to the Roman Catholic Church or Protestants Churches – go there, by all means. A sincere heart in error is better than a false heart that just happens to be in the truth, at least to me. I for my part belief, “…we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority…” St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies

 

[FrancisofPaola3]

Anna,

Thank you Sorry if I come off a bit harsh, not being able to see my face or hear my tone of voice doesn’t help – and being a kid from the streets of Washington, D.C. doesn’t help either. I do not think the Orthodox are necessarily wrong. Maybe I’m wrong, I really don’t know, so really don’t want to argue or see myself as arguing (perhaps there is this subconscious arguer in me trying to sneak out). My whole point is just honesty in quoting and representing people, like St. Augustine, correctly, in spite of where he falls at the end of the day. But in either case this should end at some point so this will be my last post on this thread with regard to the matter – the cyber-world can be time-consuming if you’re not careful

Thanks again